Re: Disowning a stopped job

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 29, 11:28am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: Disowning a stopped job
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > Using "disown" on a stopped job leaves the job stopped.  There should be at
} > least a warning about this.
} 
} Nobody answered -- or did I miss something?

It's been difficult to get opinions out of people lately.  I think we're
having -pre-X burnout.

} The other possibilities would of course be to generate an error, not
} disowning the job or to call makerunning() on it before clearing the job
} table entry.
} 
} Of these, I think I prefer the former. The user can then still call `bg'
} and then `disown'.

I suppose the former with an option to do the latter would not work, as
bg/fg/disown have always interpreted their first argument as a string to
match against job names.

Here's the thing to consider:  `disown %1' is equivalent to `%1 &!'.  I
won't go so far as to say it's "intuitive," but the latter certainly looks
as though it should cause the job to run.

Would it be weird (or even possible) to have those two variants work in
different ways in this case?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net